ORDER

1. Counsel for both the parties are present and we have heard them at length. The High Court was clearly wrong in refusing to go into the merits of the case on the ground that appeal was not maintainable in view of the full bench decision in University of Delhi v. Hafiz Mohd. Said (AIR 1972 Del 102 : ILR (1972) 2 Del 1). This decision is longer good law in view of our decision in the case of Shah Babulal Khimju v. Jayaben D. Kania (AIR 1981 SC 1786 : (1981) 4 SCC 8 : (1982) 1 SCR 187) where we have laid down various parameters and conditions under which an appeal can lie from a single Judge to the division bench. Paragraph 115 at page 1816 of the above-referred decision may be extracted thus : (SCC p. 57, para 115)

Thus, in other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decided matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. Similarly, orders passed by the trial Judge deciding question of admissibility or relevance of a document also cannot be; treated as judgments because the grievance on this score can be corrected by the appel